Play online chess!

Pages:  « previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 next »
From	Message
deadofknight 14-Sep-06, 02:15	This is funny. remember in Men in Black, Will Smith says something to the affect of " Im laughing cuz Capt America here is like really excited about being here but he doesnt a have a damn clue why he's even here." kop, you have assessed all of this properly; stuff is here, and it is here or it wouldnt be stuff. Whew...you must be glad to unload that heavy thought. Im amazed even further by the way you were able to make it sound all so "sciencey" and all and take up like half of Mikes server storage explaining it to us all. Of course I could rephrase this as lets take "stuff" to be x and "no stuff" to be "y". We could conclude that x is x just because it is and that y isnt really necessary because x is here....what a moving and triumphant accomplishment x has achieved. x has thrown the smack down on y, infinitely and eternally, and even repeatingly ( even if that repetition takes forever ) . I think Im going to go play with some more tinker toys...they are part of x, you know. Otherwise I couldnt play with them. And then if I couldnt play with them, they would be y, and I know its impossible for me to play with y, since y got its a$$ kicked by x a little while back. I love this x stuff...Especially cuz I have lots of it.
kementari 14-Sep-06, 02:35	that is funny... (Although I do have my doubts about how much server space a long post consumes... my only slightly educated guess is not a whole heck of a lot, and that's why we don't have spiffy html posting priveledges above and beyond some of the bare bones.) But even more amusing... why worship y? If you have a good reason to worship, which of the many flavors of y is the right one, and how do you know it's correct? y ⊂ x. I'll even go so far as to say y ∪ x. This doesn't change the fact that y is eternally undefined. (Sorry for all of the math terms, but they're kind of unavoidable when you start discussing the nature of the Universe. At least I left out the really confusing math... oh, wait, that's actually earlier in this thread if you followed my link. Darn.)
deadofknight 14-Sep-06, 02:51	Oh I followed it all I just think y has been a bit bashful and out of tough with his feminine side and has "issues" when it comes to x...its likely to be about that simple.
kementari 14-Sep-06, 03:01	markallen Ah ta heck with it, I'm up for the night anyway... <<The phiosophy stuff kinda scims the top of my head a little ;-)>> It gets easier with practice. It hurt my brain when I first started playing with it, too. New concepts always do. <<<<*Snip* Kem: "I know, that's a mouthful. What I'm saying here is that I've had what could easily be described as mystical experiences... [paraphrased: all in different religious traditions]. A mature science of the mind would be able to describe how this is possible while still reconciling the simple truth that the gods "responsible" for those experiences all have equal but radically different messages for mankind.">>>> <<This science of mind of which you speak Kem (and KOP).. I'm not clear what it is that you have in mind?>> Has it been clarified any by subsequent posts? It's a complicated topic, precisely because it's one of those areas that we're still uncertain about. If I had to sum it up in one sentence, I would say it's the science of disolving the ego in a transcendental feeling of unity with all of existence. <<These "messages for mankind"..." mystical experiences"? I too have seen visions (auditory and visual and kinisthetic hallucinations), usually associated with fever (particularly glandular fever) or past ingestion of hallucinogens. I've also occasionally experienced hypnogogic states (dreams expeirenced when awake just prior to sleep). I subscribe to to a fairly modular theory of mind/cognition and have an explanatory framework that enables reasonable hypotheses for how these phenomena occur. I also hold views on the function and benefits of meditation/mindfulness excersises (from a cognitive "rewiring" perspective) but am somewhat uncommitted to the actual practice. I'm wondering how close to your 'page" i might be and where your thinking may differ?>> Pretty much on the same page. I'm not professionally trained in neuroscience, and my reading hasn't been in depth enough to say whether or not spiritual experience takes place within the modular framework or outside of it. The reading that I've done suggests that mystical experience is more of a domain-general occurance, and a powerful one at that. I, like you, am not really commited to an active pursuit of turning my brain off. That will probably change as years go by, but it's just not something I enjoy at this point in my life. I recognize the health benefits, but it's just not a part of my routine for now.
pawntificator 14-Sep-06, 03:23	Meditation/mindfulness I would argue that this isn't so much turning the brain off as focusing the point of attention to laser accuracy.
markallen 14-Sep-06, 04:02	Yes, that's my belief too. I do enjoy messing with a bit of neuroscience particularly if it informs perspectives on mental life challenges. One developing view, supported by modern imaging is that mindfulness excersises develop associations between the prefrontal cortext (the "executive control") with the amygdala and other structures associaated with primitive emotions. The outcome is better control over emotional states..... so those tibetan monks ARE literally less "disturbable" and can direct attention towards experiencing more fully.
leo_london 14-Sep-06, 07:24	Your burden of proof argument, scientists do not always reason to the nonexistence of the postulated entity merely from the current absence of positive evidence for its existence. The burden-of-proof principle is therefore not one employed in the sciences.>> " Err? That's a rather extraordinary claim, Leo. Care to provide some supporting evidence for it? " Right, but before posting any supporting evidence, lets establish that we are talking about the same thing..no point in continuing an argument that doesn't exist. ;) I am not saying that scientists will make a solid assertion about the physical laws of the universe without adequate supporting proof/evidence. However, they will frequently look at the " behaviour " of x and y, then conclude that the only explanation that fits their current model would be the existence of something ( at present unknown ) that they then decide to call z. This will then be published widely, not as an established " fact " I grant you, but nevertheless it becomes the best explanation... until the next one...and so on. Is it so very different to " faith " in some respects ? It probably is, insomuch that religious " believers " are expected to have a blind, unquestioning faith, scientists are forever probing for the truth and their false concepts are only temporary, unsatisfactory hypotheses.
leo_london 14-Sep-06, 07:29	Kem.. Sorry, last post in reply to yours..forgot to title it.
kementari 15-Sep-06, 16:38	Meditation/Mindfullness Sorry, I should have been more clear in the "turning my brain off" comment. I'm sure it's not at all apparent from the nature of my posts that I have a hyperactive brain. Focusing (which I have done quite a bit of in prayer and in meditation in the past) involves shutting down that part of my brain. I'm enjoying keeping it active for now, but will probably retreat back to a practice of putting a lid on it at some point down the road. I will say that I'm a lot more disciplined when I do, and that's got it's bonuses. Then again, I get pretty much the same thing out of juggling. ;)
markallen 15-Sep-06, 16:45	Juggling..... absolutely. a great mindfullness activity as is anything where one loses onseself in the "flow". How many objects can you juggle simultaneously?
kementari 15-Sep-06, 16:52	Leo <<Right, but before posting any supporting evidence, lets establish that we are talking about the same thing..no point in continuing an argument that doesn't exist. ;)>> Oh, I would have to agree. <<I am not saying that scientists will make a solid assertion about the physical laws of the universe without adequate supporting proof/evidence.>> Ah. Well, that's good. I would argue that the existence of a metaphysical entity would be a physical law of the universe (see kop's posts on existence). <<However, they will frequently look at the " behaviour " of x and y, then conclude that the only explanation that fits their current model would be the existence of something ( at present unknown ) that they then decide to call z.>> Dangit, Leo, you're confusing the terms. ;) y = metaphysical reality. y's existence, if it exists, has to be a subset of x, because x is everything. if x is a subset of y, than y > x. Since we can hardly imagine how great x is, assuming that there is something outside of it and greater is simply stacking an unnecessary layer of complexity on top of a complex structure. There's no evidence, or reason, to do so. As far as z goes, he's out of the picture. We're talking a black or white concept here: either God is a part of existence (i.e., manmade), or existence is a part of God (in which case, he/she/it needs a little help with his/her/its public relations). <<This will then be published widely, not as an established " fact " I grant you, but nevertheless it becomes the best explanation... until the next one...and so on.>> Theory, yes. You can't prove it, but you can certainly show whether or not reality supports it. <<Is it so very different to " faith " in some respects ?>> Quite, yes. <<It probably is, insomuch that religious " believers " are expected to have a blind, unquestioning faith,>> Specifically, they have a blind and unquestioning faith that assumes many things to be true that do not conform to a study of reality. Scientific theories don't work that way. When reality puts the theory into doubt, the theory is discarded. Which, in short, would describe why I'm an atheist. <<scientists are forever probing for the truth and their false concepts are only temporary, unsatisfactory hypotheses.>> Unsatisfactory? Hardly. The Eureka! moments that can be found in testing theories against experimental evidence are far, far, far more satisfying to me, emotionally and intellectually than the Eureka? moments that I had as a believer. Science and religion stand in strong opposition to one another, precisely because the one is dedicated to the elimination of an old understanding in favor of a newer, more elegant model of comprehending reality, while the other depends upon a steadfast refusal to ask questions. The two modes of thought can only be compartmentalized. No synthesis is possible, they cancel each other out.
kementari 15-Sep-06, 17:04	3-ball only... But I have a nice variety in the tricks that I do. I'm not as good as this guy... video.google.com target="_blank">-> video.google.com , but I can do tricks like these with easy transitions from one move to the next: www.kingscascade.com target="_blank">-> www.kingscascade.com , www.kingscascade.com target="_blank">-> www.kingscascade.com , www.kingscascade.com target="_blank">-> www.kingscascade.com , www.kingscascade.com target="_blank">-> www.kingscascade.com , www.kingscascade.com target="_blank">-> www.kingscascade.com , www.kingscascade.com target="_blank">-> www.kingscascade.com , www.kingscascade.com target="_blank">-> www.kingscascade.com , ... as well as a couple of undefined tricks that I've made up on my own, with plenty of carries and movement across the body. I did a show for my daughter's kindergarten class yesterday, and got what has to be the coolest compliment ever. The kid next to my daughter told her, "You have the coolest mom in the whole world!" I blushed.
markallen 15-Sep-06, 17:31	lovely!
leo_london 15-Sep-06, 17:31	Kem.. As Arnie said..I will be back. Its getting late, but I still think we are talking at slight cross purposes..I will try to explain...later.
kementari 23-Sep-06, 07:44	Leo Bump.
leo_london 23-Sep-06, 08:01	What ?..eh ?... Oh right. You're as bad as my wife, wont let anything drop. ;) You will have to give me some time, my old brain is slow to start these days.
kementari 24-Sep-06, 15:27	your wife would have to be pretty bad... ...to be as bad as me. <checks gameknot's policies on innuendo again and flagrantly abuses them> Nah, I just hate to see a good topic die, and we've got some new members. I enjoy these types of debates, and I've been feeling a bit disappointed since dok declined my offer to spar with him over on the bush/environmentalism bit.
kementari 24-Sep-06, 15:39	dok <<I just think y has been a bit bashful and out of tough with his feminine side and has "issues" when it comes to x...its likely to be about that simple.>> I meant to respond to this earlier. First of all... cute. Very cute. Second of all, if we're going to ascribe a masculine or a feminine side to y, we might as well come right out and mention that y, as defined by many cultures, is a sadistic something that rhymes with truck. I mean seriously. There is no other excuse for an omnipotent and omniscient being to let so much evil occur in his Holy name.
pawntificator 24-Sep-06, 16:44	It bothers me when people say God is a bastard for letting all this evil occur. It is a picking and choosing of belief that is inconsistent. I mean, if you are going to believe the religious view of an omnipotent and omniscient being, why stop there? Dive into the theology and also accept the given reasons that God allows evil...namely free will, adam and eve, and all that. It isn't fair to believe in the christian god just far enough to blame him for all the evil. If you happen to believe in an impersonal God, creative force or energy, whatever, then God is free of blame, and all the bad things that happen are our fault. Either way it seems to be the people who are doing the evil, not God. Let's face it, this idea of God as all powerful, all knowing, all seeing, Mr. Walking-next-to-you-in-the-sand-in-case-you-stumble, this idea is man made. It would be silly to blame God because people gave you the idea that he was keeping an eye on things. People that get mad at God based on religion still have some work to do in the attic of the soul. No offense, kem, but that is the second time I noticed you getting mad at the picture of God someone stuck you with earlier.
kementari 24-Sep-06, 19:07	<< No offense, kem, but that is the second time I noticed you getting mad at the picture of God someone stuck you with earlier. >> Pshaw. None taken. You'd be extremely hard pressed to offend me in a religious discussion. Please understand that I'm not at all mad about the picture of God that someone stuck me with. I placed Him in quite a few frames before deciding I didn't like the way he looked in any of them and discarding the whole concept as irrelevant. I'm just pointing out the silliness of pretending that the Footprints of y do not also imply that this same kind and loving God who has carried you has simultaneously chosen to grind some people under the heel of oppression, and being a bit dramatic in the rhetoric with which I choose to do so. << It bothers me when people say God is a bastard for letting all this evil occur. It is a picking and choosing of belief that is inconsistent. >> Well, yes. It bothers religious people when I say that God is a jerk, too. Which is probably why you hear me saying it. ;) << I mean, if you are going to believe the religious view of an omnipotent and omniscient being, why stop there? Dive into the theology and also accept the given reasons that God allows evil...namely free will, adam and eve, and all that. >> Busted. Yes, that's the progression that I'm trying to get this thread to follow. Anyone want to play? << It isn't fair to believe in the christian god just far enough to blame him for all the evil. >> Pawnt, I don't believe in Peter Pan, Frankenstein, or Superman. << Either way it seems to be the people who are doing the evil, not God. >> Precisely. But people who say, "God was looking out for me", when random chance and opportunities work out in their favor should also be able to consider the implications of that belief for people who don't have things work out so well for them. << People that get mad at God based on religion still have some work to do in the attic of the soul. >> I've examined God from quite a few angles, some of which involved no conflict with my personal beliefs, and some of which involved serious soul-searching. I've gained something of value from every one of those searches, and you won't hear me saying that religion is without value. It's just dangerous when it's not rigorously subjected to logic, that's all.
pawntificator 25-Sep-06, 00:27	Hee hee <<Pawnt, I don't believe in Peter Pan, Frankenstein, or Superman>> What about Robin Hood? How about Ghandi? And what about your fellow humans? <<religion is without value.>> You are just asking for trouble with that line. Just kidding. <<you won't hear me saying that religion is without value. It's just dangerous when it's not rigorously subjected to logic, that's all.>> I heartily agree. And yet I hold that there will always come a point when our logic fails us, our science falls short, and the Good Book doesn't quite cut it. Then we are left to our own dark night of the soul, where we discover either faith, or utter emptiness, or else we turn on the tv and forget about it. Still, when communicating with others, logic is a necessity. <<Anyone want to play?>> I'm always up for a game. But I don't always enjoy the strict debate. I tend to wander, my thoughts overflow their banks, nothing remains dry in the flood of the mind, and the point is lost like the water seeping into the desert sand. See? Anyhow, my contention is that God is beyond the pairs of polar opposites such as good and evil. However, that doesn't help us have a good argument. I would also say that God is not responsible for the evil in the world, and you can almost always blame an angry or crazy person for that. Except for natural disasters. But I dont' blame God for those either. Shoot, I'm at work and i have to run.
codyj 25-Sep-06, 05:15	Run like the wind Pawn! I used to wander, examine all different possibilities (I know that isn't spelled right). But now I think that I have found the truth about religion.
pawntificator 25-Sep-06, 05:31	Well don't just sit there! Reveal to us the truth you found! I think the most important thing is for people to share what they have figured out...except for humor, which is really the most important thing. But secondarily, I think sharing crazy ideas, or even discussing well established ideas, is the best way we can figure this out. So what did you find, Thee who is not named cody?
pawntificator 25-Sep-06, 05:32	P.S. That was spelled correctly.
kementari 25-Sep-06, 06:46	<< What about Robin Hood? How about Ghandi? And what about your fellow humans? >> I find the evidence for Robin Hood's existence slightly more compelling than the evidence for Jesus Christ's existance. There are fewer contradictions in the stories about him, at least. (Try composing a chronology of the resurrection that is consistent with all of the gospels if you're incredulous.) As far as Gandhi goes, I have no trouble at all believing that he existed. His life and his struggles are public record, with very little room for skepticism involved. My fellow humans? They exist. I think it's important that we establish this whole existance thing first, in case that's not blindingly obvious. ;) Whether or not I "believe" in them is another thing entirely. I believe that hanging out in the forest all day and robbing the rich to feed the poor sounds like fun, except for the rain and the lack of diversity in one's wardrobe. I believe that Gandhi and my fellow humans try to do the right thing, and sometimes make stupid mistakes in the process. I have faith that when we put our minds to it, we are capable of more than we ever imagined was possible. But I don't need a masochistic superstar to acheive that kind of faith. << Then we are left to our own dark night of the soul, where we discover either faith, or utter emptiness, or else we turn on the tv and forget about it. >> It would probably surprise you to learn that my faith in myself and my faith in humanity is actually deeper as an atheist than it was as a theist (or, for that matter, as a polytheist). Certainly, from an inner peace perspective, I'm a heckuva lot better off now than I was when I had an "external" target for that faith.
leo_london 25-Sep-06, 07:26	Kem.. >I find the evidence for Robin Hood's existence slightly more compelling than the evidence for Jesus Christ's existance. There are fewer contradictions in the stories about him, at least. (Try composing a chronology of the resurrection that is consistent with all of the gospels if you're incredulous.)< Cant let you get away with that one. Robin Hood is purely legend, there may have been a 13th century outlaw with a similar name, it then became a generic name for outlaws in folklore for many years. There is evidence for the existence of Jesus ( the man )... for example, the bare fact of the trial and death of Jesus of Nazareth , but few of its details, is demonstrable from Christian, Jewish and Roman evidence. The letters of Paul, written within 20 years of Christ's execution also attest to his ministry..he would have been unlikely to have got away with a total fabrication within peoples living memory ?
jaymar 25-Sep-06, 11:38	I just found.. ..this thread. Its taking some catching up on but I am bemused as to why anyone would query the existence of Gandhi? Robin Hood, fair enough but Gandhi? As for JC i agree with leo. I don't doubt he existed. The question is whether everything that is attributed to him happened. The sensible answer would be no or at least not in any way that we would interpret it.
jaymar 25-Sep-06, 11:42	It just.. ..struck me. Do you mean Buddha?
codyj 25-Sep-06, 14:03	To: Pawn Christian. I feel that Christians are correct.
zorroloco 25-Sep-06, 14:17	atheist atheists are right. those who believe in christian mythology, jewish mythology, islamic mythology, etc, etc, are just operating out of fear that there is nothing beyond this life. show me some evidence! one scrap of proof that the whole truth is not that when i die, i rot. faith, smaith! i have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. i do not have faith that a mysterious, all-powerful, all-knowing being gives a flying hoot about us, what we call him/her/it, what so-called religion we claim to believe in, how many infidels we kill or convert, or how we live our lives. deal with it!
Pages:  « previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 next »

GameKnot: play chess online, chess clubs, online chess puzzles, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, free online chess games database and more.